Re: not actually the conclusion...
> people took longer to switch them off in the function + objection condition than chirpy + objection.
So another parallel with Milgram then - people hesitated and objected then as well before (albeit reluctantly) doing as 'suggested' anyway.
I'd want to see the study replicated, only this time with further test groups:
The subjects are not told to interact with the power in any way at all and left to turn it off/leave it on according to whim.
Two groups are studied with starting conditions such that the 'robot' is either already powered on at the start of the experiment or not - the latter group is not explicitly told to power it on, if it is off, but left to figure out that their interaction with the 'robot' will probably require it to be powered on.
This will also test to see whether those who needed to power the thing on first are more/less likely to power it off afterwards than those who feel it not their place to turn it off if it was already on when they got there (we are socialised to 'leave things as we found them' after all and this needs to be factored into the experimental design).
The experiment is repeated with two other groups, only this time the second group is explicitly told that it should power the robot on if necessary (bit not that it should, or even simply may turn it off again afterwards) - thus examining whether explicit mention of the status of the power influences the subjects' behaviour.
Cross-correlate the data from all three groups and we might have something free of Milgram's malign influence, as it were - Naughty Teddy sanitising the results once again, so to speak.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
